Music Pirate Mom deserves new trial

[fusilierb]

Well they really taught this "criminal" a lesson:Attorneys for Jammie Thomas-Rasset, a Minnesota mother of four slapped with a $1.92 million fine by a federal jury last month for illegally downloading 24 songs, have filed a request for a new trial.They're right to request one because the judgment against the music-sharing mom was ridiculous.The award for damages-which comes out to $80,000 per song-"shocks the conscience and must be set aside," Thomas-Rasset's lawyers wrote. They're asking the U.S. District Court of Minnesota to take one of three actions:Toss out the statutory damages, which Thomas-Rasset's team claims are based on an unconstitutional provision of the Copyright Act.If the statutory-damages provision of the Copyright Act is deemed constitutional, the jury's application of it was "excessive, shocking, and monstrous," and the fine should be reduced to $18,000.A third jury could set an even lower fine.Last month's trial was actually a retrial of an October 2007 case in which Thomas-Rasset was found guilty of copyright infringement and ordered to pay $222,000—or $9,250 per song downloaded and shared via a peer-to-per file sharing network. That verdict was later overturned by a U.S. district judge.In their bid to toss out the most recent judgment, Thomas-Rasset's lawyers accurately point out that the fine doesn't match the crime:"The statutory damages awarded in this case—which are nearly an order of magnitude greater than the statutory damages assessed in the first trial—bear no reasonable relation to the actual injury suffered by the plaintiffs. The damages awarded are grossly in excess of any reasonable estimate of that injury. The plaintiffs did not even attempt to offer evidence of their actual injuries, seeking, instead, an award of statutory damages entirely for purposes of punishment and deterrence."As my PC World colleague J.R. Raphael wrote last month, the damages of $1.92 million are not only disproportionate, they're unconstitutional:"The Supreme Court has previously indicated that 'grossly excessive' punitive damage awards are a violation of the U.S. Constitution. An award can be considered "grossly excessive" if there's too big of a gap between the actual harm done and the amount of money being named. Courts can also consider the 'degree of reprehensibility' of the defendant's actions, along with how the penalty compares to similar ones issued in the past."Furthermore, the jury was grated too much leeway to determine the appropriate fine, which should range from $750 to $150,000 per violation, according to U.S. copyright law.Digital rights watchdog groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation believe juries aren't given useful guidelines on how to determine appropriate fines, a problem that leads to absurd damages like in the Thomas-Rasset case.Will the Minnesota pirate mom get a new trial? Let's hope so. But let's also hope the new jury gets better instructions this time around. Or better yet, the Recording Industry of America (RIAA) could simply settle out of court with Thomas-Rasset for a few thousand dollars, the same approach the industry group has taken with other pirates in recent years.

[chriscarter]

Most people who break the law by file-sharing woefully understimate the damage they cause. Most people think it's no big deal, so they get sticker shock when they see these numbers. And FYI - the RIAA offered to settle with her before filing the suit, for something like $3500 and she turned it down. Then they had the first trial that went against her. Then the RIAA AGAIN offered to settle and again she refused. Then they had the second trial after the judge decided he gave the jury misleading instructions in the first trial. Even after this current ruling the RIAA has stated publicly that they are still willing to settle.Face it, this woman is an idiot.Also, the EFF is NOT a digital rights group. They are an organization working to remove the rights of copyright holders and are largely backed by the computer industry.

[markjsmith]

I teach guitar to over 50 kids a week, and more than half of them download illegaly. The other half either don't know how, or aren't allowed to because of their age (good parenting). That being said, I buy all of my music generally. I think the RIAA should spend their time and money on going after the people who create the file sharing networks and not after people (mostly kids) who know about as much about copyright law as I do about a 1.92 million dollar payout!

[maceman]

"Face it, this woman is an idiot."I remember someone once saying "He who is without sin cast the first stone..."It is hard for me to condemn when I am just as guity of breaking another commandment, yet we are so easy to condemn.No matter who broke the law or made the downloading capability in the first place, it should make us all reflect on ourselves.Maceman

[southpaw]

Who said anything about breaking commandments....? ...C'mon the woman sounds like an idiot.. no?... Still, no ones "Condemning her".... Sorry to sound like an ass... i understand your points, i dont think they're applicable tho.Jamie

[maceman]

"...a Minnesota mother of four slapped with a $1.92 million fine by a federal jury last month for illegally downloading 24 songs"Thou shall not steal. That's one of the commandements ya know So, the article said it.My point was, whether the woman is/was an idiot or not, that we all break commandments, yet when someone gets caught and openly condemned, we are quite quick to judge(by casting name stones etc...).This is why we should reflect on ourselves first. Why is the woman an idiot btw? Because she downloaded a mere 24 songs? If that was her only lifetime crime, I would gladly make her my role-model. And yes, If I were her, I would certainly be trying to get a reduction in damages. Her argument(or lawyers in this case) is faulty though. She is arguing against the amount she should owe, rather than owning up to the crime. Sounds like she is only doing what people who get caught do.Cheers,Maceman

[fusilierb]

If I remember this correctly, her children actually downloaded the 24 songs. Whether she's an idiot or not, does this really seem like a good way to solve the problem?B

[southpaw]

Hmmm... Ya, this one could get interesting... Im going to pass tho. In short-hand: Maceman, your posts sound preachy and way-too-spiritually-related... She committed a crime in the natural world, this breaks a law and has consequences... In this case a ridiculously large fine, humiliation, public scrutiny, etc. We were talking about how ridiculous of a fine that she was charged with is.... Not whether or not she had broken any commandment or was deserving of being 'condemned'... No one is perfect, the fact that she has chosen not too settle, twice, is beyond me. Again, id call it 'idiotic'. Whatever you want to call it, is up to you, but remember we'd probly never be talking about her if she would have done what (based on the information presented so far) most sensible people would."And FYI - the RIAA offered to settle with her before filing the suit, for something like $3500 and she turned it down. Then they had the first trial that went against her. Then the RIAA AGAIN offered to settle and again she refused. Then they had the second trial after the judge decided he gave the jury misleading instructions in the first trial. Even after this current ruling the RIAA has stated publicly that they are still willing to settle."

[maceman]

I'm not sure. Now that she's been charged, I don't know any other way for her to get out. I would imagine she doesn't have that kind of coin to pay for the damages, and also, I can't see any other way than "this" legal system to try to get the charges reduced.Knocking on the doors of the music owners and saying sorry is unlikely In my opinion(and just an opinion) the Law of Moses is sound in this and all cases:Ex 22:9 "For all manner of trespass, [whether it be] for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, [or] for any manner of lost thing, which [another] challengeth to be his, the cause of both parties shall come before the judges; [and] whom the judges shall condemn, he shall pay double unto his neighbour."These days, people want so much money and want to humiliate people to no end. It is unnecessary. These things don't go unnoticed, and I am sure even paying double would be a suitable lesson to those who have any conscience. To those without a conscience, no amount of money would matter.....Maceman

[maceman]

@ southpaw..... whether it is 'preachy' in your opinion is neither here nor there to be honest. I have no agenda you may be imagining other than stating some opinions. It is a free forum.Just because it sounds 'religious' does not mean my points are invalid. It is how i think and so I was simply expressing my point of view.I've already stated that the charges are rediculous. I have no idea why the woman turned down the $3500. I would need to know both sides of the story before passing any sort of judgement on that. Maybe she feels 'everyone pirates so why can't I' (which is clearly wrong)... or perhaps she is an honest type who was embarrased by her children and would rather they learn a lesson rather than her having to pay enormous amounts of money... I don't know.... Maybe she didn't actually download the songs(or her children).All i am saying is I need more info as to why she turned it down before calling her idiotic. The media is good at this sort of story, and I've learned to seek deeper facts first is all. If you learn anymore, i am happy to revise my initial view if it makes sense.Cheers,Maceman